Guns in Canada

Creekwood said:
I knew someone would call out my house of the word majority. You know what I mean. Don’t get caught up on the specifics. For each individual voting item, the majority wins. How you group them to get to individual votes on items is part of them process of your democratic process. Even if you define your democracy as a republic. Which it is.

And if your system can result in political leaders in power installed by any amount of citizens that is substantially less than the overall majority, then that is a broken system because it does not represent the will of the majority.
Click to expand...
Our founders were petrified of the will of the majority. Thats why our constitution is written the way it is.
 
keokie said:
Interesting thread. A pretty good read in my opinion.

A few of my thoughts:

- Hitler was elected by a population that immediately became defenseless against him... in significant part because they were unarmed.

- Rebels in what became America overthrew the world's largest super power at the time. They brought their guns to Bunker Hill.

- The idea that 1-6 was an insurrection has always been absolutely laugh out loud funny to me.

- The prosecution of those who protested as "insurrectionists" brings me to tears. It also terrifies me. I'm shocked the courts have allowed this to take place.

- It is pretty noteworthy that the citizens involved in this "insurrection" in a country with an incredibly well-armed citizenry... didn't think they would need a any of their guns to violently overthrow the world's greatest super power. Yep, they came to D.C. with no weapons all, and expected storming into the capital and turning over Nancy Pelosi's lectern would topple the government.

- I have no idea what would happen if there were a real insurrection in the U.S. I certainly hope it won't happen in the lifetime of myself or anyone I love. It's hard to see how the government could maintain any real level of order over an honestly unwilling population. It's also hard to see how any other government could rise up. And even if it did, it could likely be more tyrannical. Mostly, I think the fight would lead to mass chaos and suffering of the likes this country has never seen including the Civil War.

- I hope there is a way to get back the great freedoms we have lost in America.

- I have read intelligent ideas about how this might happen, and I even have some of my own ideas. Nothing seems remotely sure, or even likely to me.

- Our founders recognized the human soul yearns to be free and that is our natural state. I agree, and I really hope that will be a fountain that can produce peace, harmony, and freedom.
Click to expand...
Do you get these publications?
The scholars that author these articles paint a brighter future away from the current things we are seeing. I have hope that, in time, we will rid the rot that infects society these days.
https://imprimis.hillsdale.edu/
 
Creekwood said:
I knew someone would call out my house of the word majority. You know what I mean. Don’t get caught up on the specifics. For each individual voting item, the majority wins. How you group them to get to individual votes on items is part of them process of your democratic process. Even if you define your democracy as a republic. Which it is.

And if your system can result in political leaders in power installed by any amount of citizens that is substantially less than the overall majority, then that is a broken system because it does not represent the will of the majority.
Click to expand...
But, the founders in their wisdom were concerned that the populus centers will command and elect the government and consequently resolved to institute a representative voting system called the electoral college rather than the popular vote. Thus removing ultimate power of the big cities and centers of government. As it ends up most states (all but two) roll up the electoral votes and submit all as one result in national elections. In the end the populated cities still command all of the state's electoral solution. Until each electoral vote stands on it's merit we will continue to fall to the whims of the political power in the government centers. For example, California which has 54 electoral votes is for the most part (from a land mass aspect) a "red" state however, large city populations are for the most part "blue". So, 19 of the votes end up red and the 35 blue - as the blue has the greater vote, all 54 votes become blue and are submitted as 54 blue electoral votes in a national election. This is the big problem with the farmers and ranchers and rural cities who have interests different than the large cities - they are most likely not being represented in the current way the system works.
 
ttmott said:
But, the founders in their wisdom were concerned that the populus centers will command and elect the government and consequently resolved to institute a representative voting system called the electoral college rather than the popular vote. Thus removing ultimate power of the big cities and centers of government. As it ends up most states (all but two) roll up the electoral votes and submit all as one result in national elections. In the end the populated cities still command all of the state's electoral solution. Until each electoral vote stands on it's merit we will continue to fall to the whims of the political power in the government centers. For example, California which has 54 electoral votes is for the most part (from a land mass aspect) a "red" state however, large city populations are for the most part "blue". So, 19 of the votes end up red and the 35 blue - as the blue has the greater vote, all 54 votes become blue and are submitted as 54 blue electoral votes in a national election. This is the big problem with the farmers and ranchers and rural cities who have interests different than the large cities - they are most likely not being represented in the current way the system works.
Click to expand...
I'll add further that you might say - well a state like Texas tends to end up red in a national election so doesn't it end up balancing out? So let's look at blue areas like Austin - were they represented with their electoral vote? The answer is of course not.
But one can also see the impetus to drive people living in rural areas into the cities and cities annexing rural areas which is masked as environmental stewardship. There is a growing movement to challenge the electoral college; so reducing rural population will counter such a challenge.
 
ttmott said:
But, the founders in their wisdom were concerned that the populus centers will command and elect the government and consequently resolved to institute a representative voting system called the electoral college rather than the popular vote. Thus removing ultimate power of the big cities and centers of government. As it ends up most states (all but two) roll up the electoral votes and submit all as one result in national elections. In the end the populated cities still command all of the state's electoral solution. Until each electoral vote stands on its merit we will continue to fall to the whims of the political power in the government centers. For example, California which has 54 electoral votes is for the most part (from a land mass aspect) a "red" state however, large city populations are for the most part "blue". So, 19 of the votes end up red and the 35 blue - as the blue has the greater vote, all 54 votes become blue and are submitted as 54 blue electoral votes in a national election. This is the big problem with the farmers and ranchers and rural cities who have interests different than the large cities - they are most likely not being represented in the current way the system works.
Click to expand...
+1

This was also done at the State level where Congress, or House members in each state would elect the Senators, being that each house member represented thier district in a State. That was until the 17th amendment. If there wasn’t that amendment, I’m a firm believer that we wouldn’t have senators like Chuck Schumer and Mitch McConnell for very long, if at all.
 
OllieC said:
+1

This was also done at the State level where Congress, or House members in each state would elect the Senators, being that each house member represented thier district in a State. That was until the 17th amendment. If there wasn’t that amendment, I’m a firm believer that we wouldn’t have senators like Chuck Schumer and Mitch McConnell for very long, if at all.
Click to expand...
Right, we can't forget we are a federal system made up of states. The house was elected by the people and the popular vote, if you will. Senate and President were much more decentralized. Each state has representation not necessarily the population. So the big cities can't control -- and we have seen what damage they can do to once great states.
 
spikedaddy99 said:
Jesus...I just wanted to keep my pistol on my boat when I go to Canada in July. I worry about pirates trying to board in Lake Michigan. You guys have gone rogue...:cool:
Click to expand...
My brother's first fiancé was part of a very wealthy family. They have a 60 meter yacht that they keep in Miami. They have an armory of of ARs (you know, assault rifles) on board. Pirates are common in the Caribbean. The crew has been forced to arm up on multiple occasions.
 
highslice said:
My brother's first fiancé was part of a very wealthy family. They have a 60 meter yacht that they keep in Miami. They have an armory of of ARs (you know, assault rifles) on board. Pirates are common in the Caribbean. The crew has been forced to arm up on multiple occasions.
Click to expand...
There's a Johnny Depp joke in there somewhere...
 
spikedaddy99 said:
Jesus...I just wanted to keep my pistol on my boat when I go to Canada in July. I worry about pirates trying to board in Lake Michigan. You guys have gone rogue...:cool:
Click to expand...
You can keep your pistol in your boat as long as you stay on Lake Michigan - it’s the only Great Lake fully within the US. And yeah these guys have gone rogue (not red or rouge) :cool:
 
1704997468351.png
 
spikedaddy99 said:
Jesus...I just wanted to keep my pistol on my boat when I go to Canada in July. I worry about pirates trying to board in Lake Michigan. You guys have gone rogue...:cool:
Click to expand...
I wasn't going to reply to this thread because I didn't have an answer for you......buuuuut as you can see......:oops:
 
highslice said:
My brother's first fiancé
Click to expand...
Pirate Lady said:
Where the fark did you go to school? Or did you? JFC.

The presidential oath requires much more than the general oath of allegiance. This clause enjoins the new president to swear or affirm: "I will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
Click to expand...
Apologies. I misread BY post. Never mind.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Forum statistics

Threads
113,357
Messages
1,431,076
Members
61,210
Latest member
xImpacto
Back
Top